Is everyone aware that Greg Dilworth is adding dead weight to a sinking ship?

[Demitrios]

Is it??...I was under the impression that we had cut the debt owed by the organization nearly in half in the last two years.

Half of $2,000,000.00 is still $1,000,000.00 of debt. It's no doubt lower than that now, but if it's such a good thing, then why was the person that cut the debt in half fired? And... why is the organization still allowed to spend money when they still owe so much? Why is the spending cap that was imposed, increased from $25k to $100k? In any normal debt situation, spending would be limited, not increased.

Robby

[WGH]

Half of $2,000,000.00 is still $1,000,000.00 of debt. It's no doubt lower than that now, but if it's such a good thing, then why was the person that cut the debt in half fired? And... why is the organization still allowed to spend money when they still owe so much? Why is the spending cap that was imposed, increased from $25k to $100k? In any normal debt situation, spending would be limited, not increased.

Robby

If spending while in debt were to never be allowed, then no new businesses would ever start. It would be foolish to ignore a million dollars in debt, but it would be similarly foolish to deal with that debt by cutting service development. The replay system that seems to be the only actual item that is being addressed is not only a draw but also puts us in line with the World Cup/Olympic standards and allows our fencers to experience that judging system before actually getting to the world scene. If the US succeeds in world competition, the USFA goes up in stature and their ability to fundraise and member drive in turn.

Debt reduction has to be balanced with organizational development to make sure that you don't end up debt free but with a reduced revenue source and facing potentially expensive redevelopment costs. Halving the debt in two years? That's pretty incredible. I'd prefer that they'd reduced it by a third and put more money into improving their infrastructure and events.

[bigdawg2121]

Alright, I appreciate why everyone is so involved so I'm gonna try not be overly snarky. If you're going to be upset and have a dialogue about this Robby you have to actually read what other people are saying. Brad pointed out rather clearly that your understanding of the by-laws as they are currently is flawed. According to Brad the current rules and the motion being discussed in this thread represent a shift from NO regulation of E.D. spending to current status with limitations. Given what we know of Brad and his acumen for minutae and parsing rules I'm tempted to take his word for it but I didn't. I went and read the motion in question and based onthe wording it doesn't seem to be changing an existing policy so much as it seems to be establishing a policy. So now, can you do as he did and provide us, the marginally to moderately concerned masses with a link to where the previous bylaws actually specified $25,000 as the maximum discretionary spending limit for the E.D.?

[Demitrios]

"5. Motion (Mr. Clements; Seconded by Mrs. Bell):

...
c. The total value of the contract in the present fiscal year (i.e., the potential monetary
obligation incurred by the Association under the contract exclusive of any revenues which may
be generated under the contract) exceeds $25,000.00; ..."

"... In addition to the foregoing requirements, all contracts whose obligations in aggregate or related
financial exposure exceed $100,000.00 must be reviewed, prior to their execution"

[mdstasinos]

Just crazy speculation here, but if a sufficient number of board members voted within the first 2 days, this seems pretty reasonable.

In dealing with the internet vote and given time period to the Board (7 days), no action can be taken until the conclusion of the vote on day 7. At anytime during the 7 days any member has the right to change their vote and according to procedures and protocol no action on the subject of the vote may taken till the conclusion, by date, on the matter. The problem here Greg Dilworth has no experience here on this matter and jumped the gun on day 2 of the vote and purchased the replay sets. In addition, Greg stated he had done this in consultation with the FOC, which was not true. The first the FOC learned about the purchase of the sets was through a letter to the FOC telling them that he, Greg, had purchased the replay sets and they must be used at the first NAC. The FOC should have been the point people dealing with this subject since their people have the experience with the different sets used around the world. Again, Greg stated he worked with the FOC to buy them and the truth is he never contacted them at all before or during the process.

[Demitrios]

If spending while in debt were to never be allowed, then no new businesses would ever start. It would be foolish to ignore a million dollars in debt, but it would be similarly foolish to deal with that debt by cutting service development. The replay system that seems to be the only actual item that is being addressed is not only a draw but also puts us in line with the World Cup/Olympic standards and allows our fencers to experience that judging system before actually getting to the world scene. If the US succeeds in world competition, the USFA goes up in stature and their ability to fundraise and member drive in turn.

Debt reduction has to be balanced with organizational development to make sure that you don't end up debt free but with a reduced revenue source and facing potentially expensive redevelopment costs. Halving the debt in two years? That's pretty incredible. I'd prefer that they'd reduced it by a third and put more money into improving their infrastructure and events.

U.S. Fencing is by no means a new business. Additionally, it has been in debt for at least three years. They have had ample time to improve their infrastructure and haven't done so. Perhaps you can provide a point that's relevant.

[edew]

Robbie, I love the shirt and the look in your avatar. Who does that avatar represent?

[occasionalfencer]

Okay, this is the problem I see. Robby, I think that you have a point, or points, that other people might be very seriously interested in, and (who knows?) maybe someone on this forum or this forum collectively could possibly do some good about. But, the tone of your first several posts DOES sound like a rant, like you really don't want any facts to mess with your mind, or ours, like you are not going to be satisfied, or placated, or even moderately pleased if anything is not as bad as you think. I hope that what I intend by this comes through- I really want you to change your tone enough so that this can become a reasonable discussion, that people can learn from it, and maybe (stranger things have happened) improve some part of the situation. Please?

[oso97]

In dealing with the internet vote and given time period to the Board (7 days), no action can be taken until the conclusion of the vote on day 7. At anytime during the 7 days any member has the right to change their vote and according to procedures and protocol no action on the subject of the vote may taken till the conclusion, by date, on the matter. The problem here Greg Dilworth has no experience here on this matter and jumped the gun on day 2 of the vote and purchased the replay sets. In addition, Greg stated he had done this in consultation with the FOC, which was not true. The first the FOC learned about the purchase of the sets was through a letter to the FOC telling them that he, Greg, had purchased the replay sets and they must be used at the first NAC. The FOC should have been the point people dealing with this subject since their people have the experience with the different sets used around the world. Again, Greg stated he worked with the FOC to buy them and the truth is he never contacted them at all before or during the process.

Careful, Mark, by giving out details of the processes that call in to question decisions, you might be labeled as "not a team player."

[Demitrios]

Okay, this is the problem I see. Robby, I think that you have a point, or points, that other people might be very seriously interested in, and (who knows?) maybe someone on this forum or this forum collectively could possibly do some good about. But, the tone of your first several posts DOES sound like a rant, like you really don't want any facts to mess with your mind, or ours, like you are not going to be satisfied, or placated, or even moderately pleased if anything is not as bad as you think. I hope that what I intend by this comes through- I really want you to change your tone enough so that this can become a reasonable discussion, that people can learn from it, and maybe (stranger things have happened) improve some part of the situation. Please?

Please don't misinterpret my intensions. I'm not shouting conspiracy, or anything close to that. I'm just trying to share information that has been brought to my attention from people within, or having close ties to the organization. U.S. Fencing is in the hole it currently finds itself as a result of operating "unchecked" for far too long. Friends have hired friends for years at the main office, and this is the very reason no one gets reported, or turned in for blantant violations of standard business practices. At any legitimate company, a person like Michael Masik would be in jail right now. But as far as I know, he just collected his things and walked out the front door, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Why isn't anyone held accountable? U.S. Fencing prefers to keep everyone in the dark. That's how they continue to pull the same crap over and over. "I had no idea", is the response I usually get from people (parents, coaches, fencers, even referees), and that's the way the organization likes it. Do I sound unreasonable? Is it reasonable that U.S. Fencing treats its tournament staff like a bastard stepchild? Is it reasonable That U.S. Fencing spends over $20k on equipment that doesn't work well, when they are still in a great deal of debt? Should we give them three more years to screw up, to see if more people get fed up? How many chances are they reasonably entitled to?

[WGH]

U.S. Fencing is by no means a new business. Additionally, it has been in debt for at least three years. They have had ample time to improve their infrastructure and haven't done so. Perhaps you can provide a point that's relevant.

You didn't read the passage and just read the first sentence. Good for you. My first sentence was an example of a business spending while in debt. Another example is the world economy, which would've collapsed at least a century ago without debt operations. The rest of the passage was highly relevant, especially to the point that I'd prefer them to SLOW their debt repayment in order to prevent deteriorating the organization so much that it'll need to go back into debt just to become viable.

Spending $20k on "equipment that doesn't work well" is pretty silly. They should've spent $40k on equipment that does work well.

[nahouw]

Please don't misinterpret my intensions. I'm not shouting conspiracy, or anything close to that. I'm just trying to share information that has been brought to my attention from people within, or having close ties to the organization. U.S. Fencing is in the hole it currently finds itself as a result of operating "unchecked" for far too long. Friends have hired friends for years at the main office, and this is the very reason no one gets reported, or turned in for blantant violations of standard business practices. At any legitimate company, a person like Michael Masik would be in jail right now. But as far as I know, he just collected his things and walked out the front door, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Why isn't anyone held accountable? U.S. Fencing prefers to keep everyone in the dark. That's how they continue to pull the same crap over and over. "I had no idea", is the response I usually get from people (parents, coaches, fencers, even referees), and that's the way the organization likes it. Do I sound unreasonable? Is it reasonable that U.S. Fencing treats its tournament staff like a bastard stepchild? Is it reasonable That U.S. Fencing spends over $20k on equipment that doesn't work well, when they are still in a great deal of debt? Should we give them three more years to screw up, to see if more people get fed up? How many chances are they reasonably entitled to?

In a regular business environment the USFA would have had to declare bankruptcy years ago and not permit those involved to re-organize the company again. In other words, in the milieu of sports, the USOC should have taken over and found someone else to reorganize. But this hasn't happened yet either, so there is also a strong connection between the USFA and the USOC to permit this to continue....

[Jason]

In dealing with the internet vote and given time period to the Board (7 days), no action can be taken until the conclusion of the vote on day 7. At anytime during the 7 days any member has the right to change their vote and according to procedures and protocol no action on the subject of the vote may taken till the conclusion, by date, on the matter. The problem here Greg Dilworth has no experience here on this matter and jumped the gun on day 2 of the vote and purchased the replay sets. In addition, Greg stated he had done this in consultation with the FOC, which was not true. The first the FOC learned about the purchase of the sets was through a letter to the FOC telling them that he, Greg, had purchased the replay sets and they must be used at the first NAC. The FOC should have been the point people dealing with this subject since their people have the experience with the different sets used around the world. Again, Greg stated he worked with the FOC to buy them and the truth is he never contacted them at all before or during the process.

If this is true, it's far more damning than Robbie's "rant" and is more evidence that Greg believes he should have unilateral power rather than engage in a governing process involving multiple parties. I hope there is more information that improves this picture.

[KD5MDK]

In a regular business environment the USFA would have had to declare bankruptcy years ago and not permit those involved to re-organize the company again. In other words, in the milieu of sports, the USOC should have taken over and found someone else to reorganize. But this hasn't happened yet either, so there is also a strong connection between the USFA and the USOC to permit this to continue....

I don't think USA Fencing's position is much worse than Ford's.

[bigdawg2121]

"5. Motion (Mr. Clements; Seconded by Mrs. Bell):

...
c. The total value of the contract in the present fiscal year (i.e., the potential monetary
obligation incurred by the Association under the contract exclusive of any revenues which may
be generated under the contract) exceeds $25,000.00; ..."

"... In addition to the foregoing requirements, all contracts whose obligations in aggregate or related
financial exposure exceed $100,000.00 must be reviewed, prior to their execution"

This does not answer my question in any way. In fact you have now quoted a portion of the motion from the link Brad provided. By the by these excerpts are from the SAME motion. Unless you can provide some evidence that there was a limit to ED spending before all you've done is provide evidence that he current board has finally set limits on ED spending and requires their approval for all variances greater than $25k over specific line items. The $100k limit appears to be for any contract that might fall outside of other provisions...a $10k/yr contract with a 10yr commitment seems like it would trigger that section. However, it does not seem hat Greg could authorize $100k for anything in a single season.

I'll second Jason's statement that a premature or unilateral purchase of video replay systems is actually much more concerning than anything else I've heard...

[KD5MDK]

One might consider that the hotel bill for a NAC might be over $25k, but it would be silly to require Board approval for those.

[edew]

Andrew, wouldn't it be the case that if the item (such as the hotel bill) is already budgeted for, there's no need for board approval, since by approving the budget, that item is already approved for. I think it's the miscellaneous or discretionary expenses that the ED makes that needs oversight when it goes over $25K or $100K.

[Alexander Kai]

I don't think USA Fencing's position is much worse than Ford's.

The trouble is that we don't get that nice fat government bailout. >_>

Anyway, I'm back to lurking. I hope though, that we can all make some headway on this matter, as it seems quite important.

[KD5MDK]

Neither did Ford, which is why I picked them. They do have a lot of debt, and an operating profit though, rather like us.

Andrew, wouldn't it be the case that if the item (such as the hotel bill) is already budgeted for, there's no need for board approval, since by approving the budget, that item is already approved for. I think it's the miscellaneous or discretionary expenses that the ED makes that needs oversight when it goes over $25K or $100K.

I don't think so. For example, we might have budgeted say 150k for marketing expenses, but that doesn't mean a contract for 150k in marketing work can just be signed with Billy Bob Dilworth for example without Board approval. Who a contract with may be as important as how much it is for, as we've seen with Hang-A-Star, Circone & Associates and many other failed past contracts.

[edew]

Yes, I see that when there's a line item, but not specified as to who the receiving end is, then there may be oversight to make sure we get the right contractor to do that job. However, in the case of hotels for officials (I'm presuming), any one hotel is like another. As long as it fits within the budget and there's no under-the-table kickbacks and meets the needs of the officials, that should pretty much go forward without oversight by the Board.